OK, so we have all heard of the poorly performed re-inspections and where the primary inspector has re-documented the existance of mitigating features.
How about Re-inspections where discrepencies are listed that just aren’t true.
I saw the first results of a property that I inspected that had a re-inspection - The ID report stated discrepencies such as FBC equivalent roof and Roof Deck attachments.
My original report indicated that the roof did not meet the FBC - (installed in 1992) and that the roof deck attachments were (A) - (In this case - staples)
It just burned me up that the inspector indicated on his report that I miss reported these items - That is just tarnishing my reputation as an inspector!!
Has anyone else run across this???
Send this stuff to John S. he is compiling a database of this kind of stuff
Yes, the reinspection listed a descreptancy at roof deck and SWR. My report had no SWR credit. I started asking questions and found out that they were comparing the reinspection to an earlier WM. Turned out that my report had never been submitted and they were still using an even earlier WM because it had better ratings.
Yet, the client calls me after the whole thing blows up on reinspection. Anyway, I helped the client get his roof deck rating straightened out.
Wonder why we need reinspections!
I would communicate this information to the office of Insurance Consumer Advocate, they are watching the reinspection issue. There is a class action lawsuit coming very soon. There is strong belief that Citizens is using definitions that are more restrictive than those intended in the OIR B1-1802 form. One such restriction was to use “Other” when the single wraps had only 3 nails. This was incorrect since the form clearly defined a metal connector attached to at least one side of the truss rafter as clip.
Another overly restrictive practice is to require shutter to have a Miami-Dade approval, the form defines the acceptable testing standards for shutter systems. If a shutter system demonstrates compliance with these standards it would qualify for a local jurisdictional product approval, and would thus be considered acceptable. An IIC Legacy report, a FBC Product Approval or a Miami-Dade Approval are all acceptable forms demonstrating compliance with the intent that opening protection systems comply with the listed testing standards for large missile impact.
They just put no attic access or other for everything